"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Went to bed early Thursday night — it was a long day — and woke up early to start putting together my thoughts on the Democrat debate I missed, but then started engaging the comments on “Missing College Girl Mackenzie Lueck Was a Social-Media ‘Sugar Baby’ Whore.” This inspired some thoughts that I want to record while they’re fresh in my mind, and I’ll get to the debate commentary later. As I said in that post:

If you criticize the “sugar baby” racket, feminists will condemn you for “slut-shaming.” They openly advocate the most irresponsible promiscuity, and consider any criticism to be “sexist.” . . .
Feminist “empowerment” means that there are no moral standards for women, so that the college girl will never encounter anyone in authority on campus who would dare to tell her that whoring around via social media is a bad idea.

This is a point that reflects Rollo Tomassi’s insight about the implications of living in a “feminine primary social order.” Western civilization’s tradition of chivalry toward women — the civilized man was taught to show an appropriate deference toward “the weaker sex” — has been leveraged as a force to advance the anti-traditional agenda of feminism. Yet because human nature cannot be changed by political force, women are still vulnerable in ways that traditional civilization understood, but which feminists wish to ignore or deny. Feminist attacks on sexual “double standards” — their insistence that criticism of female promiscuity is “sexist,” and therefore illegitimate — ignore the real harms experienced by women who attempt to pursue “liberation” in this manner.

Men and women are different, and these differences are socially significant. Forcing people to pretend otherwise is foolish, but that’s what our laws and policies against “discrimination” are about — compelling us to remain silent about real differences between men and women, while implementing an agenda that ignores these differences. Speaking out against the feminist agenda carries real risks (ask James Damore) and this has the effect of silencing common-sense objections to bad ideas promoted in the name of feminism. What this means, at a practical level, is that women’s behavior is off-limits to male criticism. In a “feminine primary social order,” male opinions are essentially irrelevant.

Now consider the case of Mackenzie Lueck in this light. Anyone with common sense could have told her that whoring herself out as a “sugar baby” was a bad idea, but she was in a bubble, using her private online accounts to conceal this behavior from anyone who might criticize it. Apparently, her friends knew what she was doing, but using social media and dating apps to hustle cash is considered acceptable by many college girls, so she was shielded from any sort of common-sense warnings about the risks involved in this form of “empowered” sexuality.

“Don’t be a whore” is always good advice, but Third Wave feminist ideology effectively prohibits any criticism of female sexual behavior. Because well-mannered men wish to avoid offending women, a sense of chivalry may lead men to cooperate with this prohibition, and some men will play “white knight” by rushing to defend Mackenzie Lueck (and other girls in the “sugar baby” racket) from any condemnation.

GUYS: YOU’RE NOT REALLY HELPING WOMEN
BY BEING A ‘MALE FEMINIST.’

The world feminists have helped create is not a better world for women than the world they’ve destroyed in the name of “equality.” Your grandmother’s world may have been less equal than the world we live in, but she had the benefit of certain traditional institutions and customs that younger women today are sorely lacking. Deprived of the security that women obtained from the institutions of a traditional social order, young women are now vulnerable to the toxic influence of a culture that promotes sexual exploitation as “empowerment.” But nobody can talk bluntly about this, because feminism won’t allow it.

If there is any hope at all of restoring sanity to our society, men must summon the courage to speak the truth, no matter how “offensive” such truth-telling might be to feminist-influenced women. Indeed, telling the “offensive” truth might help save a woman’s life.

A former Army IT specialist who owns a home five miles from a park where University of Utah student Mackenzie Lueck went missing, has been named as a person of interest, DailyMail.com can reveal.
Salt Lake City Police have been searching the home of a man they identified as a person of interest in Lueck’s case, revealing they had collected evidence from the home at a press conference on Thursday.
While police declined to name the homeowner, DailyMail.com learned it is owned by Ayoola ‘AJ’ Ajayi, 31, who lists a private room inside the home on Airbnb for up to $40 a night.
Officials announced they are now searching for a mattress and box spring that Ajayi had given away for free on resale website LetGo five days ago.
Salt Lake City Police requested for the person who picked up the items to contact them, as they continue searching for Lueck.
Lueck, a 23-year-old sorority member, disappeared after taking a Lyft car on June 17 from the airport to a park located miles away from her apartment.
Ajayi was employed by the Army as an Information Technology Specialist for nearly two years before leaving in June 2016, according to his LinkedIn.
He currently works at Dell as a Senior Technical Support Analyst and has so for the past 10 months.

No one should jump to conclusions here. Being a “person of interest” is not the same as being a suspect, and even then, this man would be considered innocent until proven guilty. Yet if this story continues developing in this direction, expect feminists to ignore it completely.